SDNY Judge Furman Gives Silk
Road Gary Davis 78 Months While Cooperator
Jones Got 66
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Video, pics
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 24 – The dark web was a
theme in the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York on July
24. Gary Davis of
Silk Road
was up for
sentencing, facing a
guideline
of 168 to 210
months.
SDNY Judge
Jesse M. Furman
also mentioned
a possible guideline
of 235 to 292
months but
said it didn't
matter as he
would be giving a
downward
variance. But
how far?
Davis' co-defendant
Andrew
Michael
Jones a/k/a Inigo got
66 months,
even though Davis'
lawyers noted
that he was
involved with
Silk Road
founder Ross
Ulbricht a/k/a
Dread Pirate
Roberts' thread to
kill another
staff member
named Flash,
for stealing.
But Jones
reached a
cooperation
agreement with
the government,
and got a
5K1.1 letter.
Davis
on the other
hand had two
days of
proffering,
the second one
"animated" according
to his lawyer.
Assistant
US Attorney
Michael D. Neff said
he would say
something to
Judge Furman
which could
not be
considering in
the sentencing.
It seemed a
legal fiction,
but the 78
months imposed
by Judge
Furman for
Davis, the
and
order of removal
agreed to, are
not.
Davis'
parents flew
in from
Ireland, and apparently
will again to
wherever on
the East Coast
Davis is designated.
The end game
of the
sentencing was
speeded up so
that AUSA Neff
could make it
across Pearl
Street to the
courtroom of
Judge Denise
Cote. There,
another dark
web defendant
was ready to
plead guilty.
Dark indeed.
In a court
proceeding that began as open,
with the defendants' family
members and even legal interns
present on July 22, Inner City
Press was ordered to leave,
leaving no media or member of
the general public present.
It took
place in the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York at 500
Pearl
Street in
Courtroom 14C
before Judge
Paul A. Crotty. The
week's SDNY
Civil and
Criminal
Proceedings
Calendar which
Inner City
Press prints out
each Monday
listed a Change
of Plea for
11:30 am
in USA v.
Perlson,
18-cr-751.
When Inner
City Press went
in at 11:30 am, at
first Judge
Crotty was
asking why a
transcript in
the case said
it was from
November 31,
when November
has only 30
days.
"Good
catch," the
Assistant US
Attorney said,
adding that he
thought it
was from
October 31. He
added that Perlson
would now be
allocuting
to Count 2 and
that there
was a
cooperation
agreement.
Suddenly the
lawyers
pointed out
Inner City
Press in gallery, and
said while legal
interns were OK then
objected to
Inner City
Press'
presence. Judge
Crotty
asked Inner
City Press to
identify
itself.
"I am a reporter. If
you are going
to try to
close a public
courtroom there
must be
specific
findings, for
specific
portions. There is
case law."
There followed
a sidebar,
apparently
transcribed,
from which
Inner City
Press was
excluded. At
the end Judge Crotty
while ordering
Inner City Press to
leave said that
the
government's
case is moving
along well and
that he hoped
to unseal the
transcript in
a month.
But is that
enough? Inner
City Press
left the
courtroom as
ordered,
adding as it
left that a
case on point
is
United States
v. Haller,
837 F.2d 84,
87 (before
closing a
proceeding to
which the
First
Amendment
right of
access
attaches, the
judge should
make specific,
on the record
findings
demonstrate
that closure
is essential
to preserve
higher values
and is
narrowly
tailored to
serve that
interest).
But
Inner City
Press was not
given an
opportunity to
make its
argument
before being
ordered out.
And once back
to the PACER
terminal at which
it has been
working for
months, searching
by "Perlson"
resulted in
nothing, and
18-cr-751
"case not
found." But it
remains in the
(printed-out)
SDNY calendar.
We'll have
more on this -
it is becoming
pattern.
For example on
9 July
2019 before SDNY Judge Loretta
A. Preska: listed
on
PACER and in
the SDNY
lobby for 10
am before her
was the case
of USA v.
Connors
Person, et
al,
17-cr-683,
complete with
letters of
support from the
head bank
regulators of
the state of
Alabama.
But when Inner
City Press
arrived at
10:10 am,
there was a shackled
defendant
with corn rows
at the defense
table. His
lawyer stood
and summoned
Assistant U.S.
Attorney Frank
Balsamello out
into the hall
by the elevators.
When they
returned, at the
same time as two of
the defendant's
family
members, Judge
Preska
asked about
those present
in the room, and
summoned the
lawyers up for
a sidebar - with
a court
reporter, which may
later
be
significant.
After the
sidebar
discussion,
Judge Preska
called the
case as US v.
Santino-Barrero
(phonetically
- it was not
written down
anywhere.) Then
Judge Preska
asked the
defendants' family
members to stand,
then the legal
interns, then
other interns
introduced by
one of the
Marshals.
"Is that you
in the back, Mister
Lee?" Judge
Preska
asked.
Inner City
Press
previously reported
daily on
the UN bribery
trial and
sentencing of
Patrick Ho
before Judge
Preska, once
answering in
open court her
question
about press
access to
exhibits in
that case. So the
answer was
Yes.
I'm going to have to
ask you to
leave, Judge
Preska said.
Inner City Press
considered asking
why, right
there, but
decided
against it. It
has recently
been advised
to not ask so
many question,
even as
its question
about a
suddenly
sealed June 17
sentencing by
SDNY Judge
Lorna
Schofield
remains
unanswered, see
below.
The
PACER terminal
in the SDNY
Press Room does
not list a
Santino Barrero
as a
defendant. The
Bureau of
Prison's
website is
only
searchable
with a first
name, which
was not given. Thus
it's a dead
end
when an entire
proceeding is
moved into the
judge's robing
room barred to
the press and
public, with
no notice or
opportunity to
be heard.
Inner City
Press will
have more on
this - see
also @InnerCityPress
and the new @SDNYLIVE.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|